Trayvon Martin

[Y2HH]

The evidence may be in his favor, but the public perception is not.

 

Ill take perception over evidence at any trial.

 

Yes, but that's a piss poor attitude, and goes against everything our justice system stands for.

 

Because public perception is that Zimmerman is guilty doesn't mean he actually is...the fact you are all convicting him sucks. Now, I don't know what happened, but I'm not ready to convict someone of murder because it seems popular to f***ing do so.

 

Sheep.

 

Edit: The evidence that currently exists, IMO, isn't evidence enough to convict someone of murder in a state where that law exists.

 

Also, I think it's pretty agreed upon that the law is bad...but so are laws saying you should retreat. Neither should exist because both are bad. BUT, just because we don't like a law doesn't mean you can just choose to ignore it because current public perception is right now that an innocent kid got killed...when none of you, including Obama, knows much about what actually went down.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Oh, and I realize it's not cool or hip of me -- and probably a bit controversial, -- but I don't feel like jumping the convict Zimmerman of murder bandwagon because it seems like the racially charged thing to do right now. No thanks. Let the investigations continue, and let this play out BEFORE convicting people because you'd really really love it if they were guilty.

 

When they may not be.

 

Once again guilty until proven innocent, I see.

[Soxbadger]

Y2HH,

 

You have to realize that Im not a Florida citizen, I wont be on the jury and I will never have to apply such a stupid law at a trial. That being said, I am using what I personally believe should be the law, and in my personal opinion based on the current facts, I believe Zimmerman should have been charged with a crime.

 

That is the important aspect that is lost here. The outrage isnt about whether he is innocent or guilty, its about the fact that he hasnt even been charged with a crime, it never went to a DA (a lawyer) to actually make the decision on whether there were enough facts to prosecute or not.

 

The ironic part, is that I generally am one of, if not the strongest, advocates for Defendants on this board. If you look through other threads, 9 out of 10, I am the one saying that you should not convict etc, until all of the facts are available.

 

But there is a huge difference between conviction and pressing charges. And I think its pretty disingenuous to call people sheep just because they may disagree with your point of view.

 

Also, I think it's pretty agreed upon that the law is bad...but so are laws saying you should retreat. Neither should exist because both are bad.

 

Yep both are bad laws, Ive said this multiple times in the thread.

[StrangeSox]

Y2HH,

 

You have to realize that Im not a Florida citizen, I wont be on the jury and I will never have to apply such a stupid law at a trial.

 

Illinois' law is remarkably similar. They were both probably written with the aid of the NRA.

[Soxbadger]

y2hh,

 

As long as you consistently believe

 

Let the investigations continue, and let this play out BEFORE convicting people because you'd really really love it if they were guilty.

 

I have no problem with that, Im the biggest advocate of that on this board.

 

But I really dont recall you in the PSU threads defending Paterno...

[Soxbadger]

Ill never be on an Illinois jury either.

 

No prosecutor would ever take that risk.

[Y2HH]

But there is a huge difference between conviction and pressing charges. And I think its pretty disingenuous to call people sheep just because they may disagree with your point of view.

 

Not why I called people sheep. I said that in direct response to you saying you'll take public perception over evidence. That's a sheeple attitude at it's WORST. The sheep comment has and had nothing to do with you or anyone else agreeing or disagreeing with my opinions.

[Y2HH]

y2hh,

 

As long as you consistently believe

 

 

 

I have no problem with that, Im the biggest advocate of that on this board.

 

But I really dont recall you in the PSU threads defending Paterno...

 

Wasn't in that tread, kept out of it because I have a young daughter and because of that my opinion is completely compromised. Therefore, I think that's best left to people who can make an unbiased judgement on that case...because my feelings on innocent until proven guilty still stand, even when it comes to Paterno's name.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Juries are sheep, sorry if the truth isnt good, but the reality is that most people in the world are sheep.

[Y2HH]

Juries are sheep, sorry if the truth isnt good, but the reality is that most people in the world are sheep.

 

Oh, I agree. Said it in a previous thread, or possibly this one...I was a foreman on a Jury a few years ago...and it was the saddest experience of my life. Not a single person other than me gave a crap about anything presented in the case...it was annoying. The worst part is knowing that if something was to happen to someone I know, or anyone here, that you'd better hope you get a single juror like me...because it's all you need is one that does care, since I assure you most of them don't. They just want to get home ASAP, and what happens to you matters not.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

That is the important aspect that is lost here. The outrage isnt about whether he is innocent or guilty, its about the fact that he hasnt even been charged with a crime, it never went to a DA (a lawyer) to actually make the decision on whether there were enough facts to prosecute or not.

Of course, if there wasn't a national outrage over this, the state level and now federal investigations would almost certainly have not happened.

[StrangeSox]

Oh, I agree. Said it in a previous thread, or possibly this one...I was a foreman on a Jury a few years ago...and it was the saddest experience of my life. Not a single person other than me gave a crap about anything presented in the case...it was annoying. The worst part is knowing that if something was to happen to someone I know, or anyone here, that you'd better hope you get a single juror like me...because it's all you need is one that does care, since I assure you most of them don't. They just want to get home ASAP, and what happens to you matters not.

[Y2HH]

Of course, if there wasn't a national outrage over this, the state level and now federal investigations would almost certainly have not happened.

 

It's too bad we don't treat all murders of possible innocents like this...because as I know it, bunches of innocent kids and people were gunned down in Chicago the last few weeks...and nobody gives a flying f***.

[Soxbadger]

y2hh,

 

Dont even get me started on juries. Its just a really stupid practice, at minimum you should get paid by your employer for the day.

 

Balta,

 

I guess the Machiavellian inside of me believes that the ends justified the means.

[Soxbadger]

It's too bad we don't treat all murders of possible innocents like this...because as I know it, bunches of innocent kids and people were gunned down in Chicago the last few weeks...and nobody gives a flying f***.

 

In how many of those cases did the shooter confess?

 

Because Id expect there to be outrage if a shooter confessed to shooting a kid and there were no charges brought...

[Y2HH]

In how many of those cases did the shooter confess?

 

Because Id expect there to be outrage if a shooter confessed to shooting a kid and there were no charges brought...

 

Not quite the same situation...but the fact that it happens on a near daily/weekly basis and hardly anyone seems to care is what should draw huge amounts of outrage...it shouldn't require a one-off account like this to draw attention to a problem.

 

This drew attention to a badly written law in Florida...good. This gets national attention...but kids dying in Chicago gets a few snippets in local papers and then everyone forgets. Well, everyone except the families that lost an innocent child because of a piece of s*** wielding a gun in a City with some of the toughest gun laws in existence...yea, that's working well.

[StrangeSox]

Not quite the same situation...but the fact that it happens on a near daily/weekly basis and hardly anyone seems to care is what should draw huge amounts of outrage...it shouldn't require a one-off account like this to draw attention to a problem.

 

This drew attention to a badly written law in Florida...good. This gets national attention...but kids dying in Chicago gets a few snippets in local papers and then everyone forgets. Well, everyone except the families that lost an innocent child because of a piece of s*** wielding a gun in a City with some of the toughest gun laws in existence...yea, that's working well.

Been meaning to watch this, heard it's really good:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/interrupters/

[Y2HH]

Been meaning to watch this, heard it's really good:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/interrupters/

 

Never heard of this, what is it, if you could give a quick synopsis? I can't check right now.

[StrangeSox]

"An intimate journey across the violent landscape of our cities through the eyes of those fighting to sow peace and security."

 

A Frontline report on CeaseFire.

 

edit: based largely on this docu:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Interrupters

Edited March 26, 2012 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

I know if I was on the jury and you told me that Zimmerman, an armed man who was basically stalking an unarmed citizen, for the sole purpose that he seemed suspicious (of walking while black) an altercation then ensued, and then Zimmerman shot the unarmed citizen in "self defense," there would have to be some pretty darn good evidence for me to believe that the unarmed man was the person who initiated the altercation...much better than what we have here so far.

 

I understand you don't want to convict innocent men who were merely acting in self-defense, but those same men shouldn't be carrying a concealed weapon and stalking unarmed men around the neighborhood merely because they appear "suspicious."

 

It would be a shame if I were to be falsely convicted of attempted bank robbery, but then I also don't make it a habit of approaching bank tellers with notes while carrying a gun.

 

None of this would have happened if this idiot would have just let it go at contacting the police and allowing them to do their jobs.

Edited March 26, 2012 by iamshack

[Soxbadger]

y2hh,

 

No it doesnt happen on a daily basis.

 

If someone in Chicago was carrying a weapon on the street, shot someone and confessed, they would be charged with a crime.

 

Gun laws dont stop crimes, laws dont stop crimes, that has been proven since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time.

 

But I doubt that many people would argue that there should be no laws, thus we create laws, not to stop crime, but instead to deter crime. If you live in Chicago, there is a great deterrent to walking around with a gun (you may go to jail simply for having one like Plaxico), if you live in Florida there is no deterrent for walking around with a gun.

 

Whether or not you believe that people should be deterred from owning guns is up to you.

Edited March 26, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

I know if I was on the jury and you told me that Zimmerman, an armed man who was concerned was basically stalking an unarmed citizen, for the sole purpose that he seemed suspicious (of walking while black) an altercation than ensued, and then Zimmerman shot the unarmed citizen in "self defense," there would have to be some pretty darn good evidence for me to believe that the unarmed man was the person who initiated the altercation...much better than what we have here so far.

The Jury might well not even be allowed to hear about the buildup to it, given the state of the law.

[Y2HH]

y2hh,

 

No it doesnt happen on a daily basis.

 

If someone in Chicago was carrying a weapon on the street, shot someone and confessed, they would be charged with a crime.

 

Gun laws dont stop crimes, laws dont stop crimes, that has been proven since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time.

 

But I doubt that many people would argue that there should be no laws, thus we create laws, not to stop crime, but instead to deter crime. If you live in Chicago, there is a great deterrent to walking around with a gun (you may go to jail simply for having one like Plaxico), if you live in Florida there is no deterrent for walking around with a gun.

 

Whether or not you believe that people should be deterred from owning guns is up to you.

 

I understand I was being hyperbolic when I said innocent kids get killed on a daily basis...but it happens...a LOT. It happens too much. There has been a terrible spree of deadly violence in Chicago this past month. What I'm not being hyperbolic about is that shootings and shooting related deaths or injuries DO happen on a daily basis in Chicago. So I hope you aren't claiming they don't.

 

If all of this was treated with the same national attention, I bet it would happen far less than it does now. That's my point. Instead, it gets hardly any attention, and will just continue to happen.

 

Edit: Speak of the Devil! Rhammel (yes, I spell it that way on purpose ) and McCarthy are holding a press conference about the rising gun violence in Chicago as we speak. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/b...0,2025415.story Too bad their "anti violence" efforts are worse than their predecessors (Daley/Weis).

Edited March 26, 2012 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

No Im saying that when most shootings occur in Chicago, they dont know who the shooter is, and that is why there isnt a lot of national outrage about the fact that there havent been any charges pressed.

 

What national attention should it get?

 

That crimes are going unsolved? That isnt something that you can just wave a wand and fix. This case there is something that outrage can actually do (whether you agree or not) and that is pressure the police to charge Zimmerman.

 

In most cases its not that they dont want to charge someone, its that they literally have no idea who is the criminal.

 

So you can walk on the street all night long, but what will that change? The police are already trying to catch the guy, that is the difference. In this case, the police had the guy in custody and let him walk. Many people believe that the police didnt even properly investigate.

 

That is where the outrage comes from.

[Balta1701]

Unfortunately the question one runs into there is one of "outrage limits".

 

What's better, that an equal amount of outrage/coverage is imposed on all cases regardless of their impact on societal decisions, and thus no case ever receives enough coverage to force a law to change, or that some cases are left by the wayside but there is fundamental shift in society away from things like having everyone and their grandmother carrying?

 

If you accept the latter, of course, then you also wind up accepting "Blonde white woman syndrome", "Scott Peterson did something", "Nancy Grace has a job", etc.